Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tamboukou M. and Ball S. J. Eds 2003 Dan PDF
Tamboukou M. and Ball S. J. Eds 2003 Dan PDF
It is no longer possible to think in our days other than in the void left by man’s
disappearance. For this void does not create a deficiency; it does not constitute a
lacuna that must be filled. It is nothing more, and nothing less, than the unfolding
of a space in which it is once more possible to think. (Foucault, 1970, p.342)
Foucault’s analyses have been unfolded in the spatial void of the crisis of
modernity, along with other theories that have explored the relation
between language, subjectivity, social organisation, and power. Foucault has
widely criticised what he has called ‘the sciences of the man’ [sic] and has
revealed the disciplinary and normalizing procedures inherent in the various
epistemologies revolving around them. Despite these criticisms, however,
there is a growing interest recently in the impact of Foucault’s theoretical
work on many areas within the social sciences.1
It seems that researchers in the social sciences have taken seriously
Foucault’s generous invitation for his theories to be used as a tool of
analysis rather than as a closed theoretical framework, as well as his
assertion about the need for new genealogies to be written.2 It also seems
that ethnographers have been particularly seduced by the Foucauldian
challenge, in our view, not accidentally.3 Exploring ‘ethnographic trends in
2 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
Theoretical Affinities
Interrogating the validity and universal authority of scientific knowledge. One major
meeting point between ethnography and genealogy is represented in the
view that the social world cannot be understood in terms of causal
relationships or by the subsumption of social events under universal laws.
Genealogy is concerned with the processes, procedures, and apparatuses
whereby truth and knowledge are produced. Instead of asking in which
kinds of discourse we are entitled to believe, genealogies pose the question
of which kinds of practices, linked to which kinds of external conditions,
determine the different knowledges in which we ourselves figure. In a
similar way, ethnography ‘can offer a more complicated version of how life
is lived’ (Britzman, 1995, p.231) and can document how ‘some powerful
groups are able to impose their definitions of reality on others’
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983, p.12). In this light, both ethnography and
genealogy introduce scepticism about universalist dogmas of truth,
objectivity, and pure scientific reason, and interrogate the supposed
interconnections between reason, knowledge, progress, and freedom.
Recovering excluded subjects and silenced voices. In contrast to the traditional focus
on grand historical events and ‘immobile forms’, the genealogical search
concerns itself with ‘lowly beginnings’ detail and trivia, the ephemeral, with
what has remained unnoticed and unrecorded in the narratives of
mainstream history. In searching in the maze of dispersed and forgotten
events, it provides a conduit for submerged voices which are obscured and
6 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
Restoring the political dimension of research. In its testing of the limits of power
and truth, genealogy is clearly a project of political critique. By stressing the
circulation of power within structures of domination, it informs practical
reasoning and opens up possibilities for political resistance. Foucault
himself has stated: ‘I would like in short to resituate the production of true
and false at the heart of historical analysis and political critique’ (Foucault,
Genealogy and Ethnography 7
The dance between power and resistance.10 In rethinking power and resistance, we
must again face the question: Are these interpretive stances implacably and
irredeemably opposed, or is there any topos between them? Borrowing
Foucault’s rhetoric, we have to admit that this is at the very least a difficult
question to answer. This does not mean, however, that we cannot ask the
question (Foucault, 1981, p.238) and struggle with the issues it raises.
Foucault has pointed out differentiations between relations of power—as
fields of games in which freedom can be exercised—and relations of
domination, which sometimes remain blocked and frozen and which need
to be resisted: ‘when I say that power establishes a network through which
Genealogy and Ethnography 9
Methodological Affinities
as the object and purpose of research’ (Jones and Ball, 1995, p.46). It is in
the process of interpretation, however, that the genealogist has to stand
back, disengage herself from the turbulence of the problem and indulge in
her ‘pathos for distance’. Moreover, this confession of interpretation also
goes a long way in preempting the necessity of pretending that our
‘problems’ are ‘out there’ waiting to be ‘located’. As it is now more and
more widely accepted, to all intents and purposes, our disciplines and
procedures produce the problems that they address. Foucault at one time
described his work as ‘several fragments of autobiography’ derived from his
experience of ‘something cracked, dully jarring or disfunctioning in things I
saw in the institutions in which I dealt with my relations with others’
(quoted in Rajchman, 1985, p.36) or, as he put it on another occasion: ‘I
think that the ethico-political choice we have to make every day is to
determine which is the main danger (1986a, p.343). This is, of course, very
directly opposed to ethnography’s ‘orientation to discovery’, but Woods
(1986 p. 169) also sees the ethnographic art as underpinned by both
‘discipline, control, and method’ and ‘liberation, creativity, and imagination’.
Ethnography may be realist but may be not that realist.
were, to ‘play’ with it’. Foucault weaves systematically the nexus of the
power relations, the historical and cultural conditions, and the practices
under scrutiny by drawing new lines and making interconnections among
the different points of his constructed diagrams. Finally, the genealogical
analysis stresses the limits imposed by the social conditions within which
practices of the self are cultivated. Foucault’s originality lies in his strategic
use of different discourses and approaches in the writing of his genealogies.
Each reading of these genealogies reveals hidden layers of attentive and
detailed research with and across an immense variety of data.13
Ethnography also uses different sources of data: the heard, seen,
written, enacted, and shared. In analyzing her data, the ethnographer
organizes analytical frames, makes charts, constructs models of structures
and typologies, and develops codes and sub-codes. Ethnographic coding
has been the target of scathing postmodern critique and, it has to be said, its
positioning within the hermeneutic tradition seems to place it at some
distance from the genealogical insistence of sticking to the surface of things.
As a result, perhaps, many but not all genealogical ethnographies eschew
the sort of categorizations that were basic to Foucault’s practice.
The problematics of writing: common grounds and tensions. It goes without saying
that in discussing methodological affinities, we cannot but be concerned
with the problem of writing. While doing genealogy is almost inseparable
from writing genealogy, the distinction between doing ethnography and
writing ethnography throws up a variety of difficult issues and unsolved
problems which have been the subject of much recent debate.14 The
recentness of the recognition of a doing/writing distinction is significant in
itself. As James Clifford has pointed out, ethnography has long drawn on
‘an ideology claiming transparency of representation and immediacy of
experience’ (1986, p.2). Writing was considered to be a pure problem of
method. It would be an unproblematic and practical skill, as long as the
ethnographer was able to keep good field notes, was careful, and was
systematic in organizing her data and clear and precise in writing up’ her
‘findings’. This, however, is only one very modernist version of
ethnography, which, as Deborah Britzman (1995, p.230) comments,
‘depends upon the rationality and stability of writers and readers and upon
noncontradictory subjects who say what they mean and mean what they
say’. Poststructural and postmodern approaches to ethnography have
radically questioned the unproblematic immediacy that mainstream
ethnography advocates and have demonstrated that the exploration of
ethnographic textual practices inevitably reaches ‘beyond texts to contexts
16 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
These are all useful strategic stages in any research project. After
locating her area of interest, however, the researcher has to go out there, in
the field. She has to collect her data. However, how does she act in the light
of the attempt to shatter given certainties? At this point, genealogy may
make her rethink certain methodological choices and decisions. More
specifically, she has to be more sceptical about:
Thus, while what the researcher ‘sees’ and/or notes have changed, she
still keeps on seeing, noting, interviewing, keeping a field diary. The
researcher is still acting, planning, performing like an ethnographer, but she
thinks, analyses, and writes like a genealogist. Moreover, she is more
sceptical about what she does, how she does it. That which appears obvious
in ethnography is made not so obvious at all.
The ethnographic influence on genealogy: weaving the materiality of ideas. The issues
that are examined here revolve around these questions:
1) Who are these subjects we are talking about? Are they real? Do
they exist? Where? In what circumstances?
Genealogy and Ethnography 21
2) How do they cope? What are their problems? How do they feel?
How do they react? Can we see them? How? Can we talk to them?
How?
In this final introductory overview, we will use the chapters that follow, and
their representations of the interplay between genealogical strategies and
various ethnographic methods, as a basis for thinking about the
theorization of the research act. This interplay between ethnography and
genealogy is an encounter between two sets of flexible, even unstable,
practices. Genealogy is an emerging research tradition still in the process of
discovering itself or making itself up. It has a certain elusiveness and
impenetrability. Ethnography—or ethnographies—is an embedded but
‘fractured’ (Smith, 1990) practice made up of different traditions and styles
of work drawn from sociology, anthropology, and philosophy. Ethnography
is denoted by a certain methodological promiscuity. It is certainly, by
definition, responsive and adaptive rather than prescriptive. It requires a
practical inventiveness. We want to look more closely at what may happen,
what is actually happening, or what has already happened by this encounter.
The contributors to this collection are theorists but also practitioners
who have applied genealogical drives to their ethnographic inquiries. They
22 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
of ‘the Disabled’ emerging from these layers of data that ultimately call
attention to the multi-dimensions of the ethnographic gaze itself, its
potential to problematize dominant representations of Disability. Informed
by genealogical insights, the ethnographic project can rid itself of simplistic
dichotomies and engage in the project of what counts as Disability, how it
is represented, and who can speak for it.
Following traces of desacralization already employed in McWilliam’s
irony and Peter and Fendler’s flâneurism, Kari Dehli’s chapter ‘ “Making” the
Parent and the Researcher: Genealogy meets Ethnography in Research on
Contemporary School Reform’ touches the sacred area of parental
involvement in education. In interrogating the making of the figure of the
parent in the matrix of educational discourses, Dehli undertakes the risky
task of moving in between ‘involvement and distance’ focusing on the
interplay between ‘the making of the parent’ and ‘the making of the
researcher’; she is herself as ‘a researcher’, included in this reflexive practice
informed by both genealogical and ethnographic problematics and issues.
The route she follows to do this takes an unexpected turn in the very
writing of the chapter, making its production a moment encompassing and
demonstrating the joy of the surprise, the unexpected, the previously non-
imagined possibilities that, as we have argued, can open up for researchers
working on the shaky grounds where genealogy and ethnography
interweave. Dehli starts with a series of imaginary investigations a ‘classic’
genealogist would have undertaken: interrogating the conditions of
possibility for ‘parental involvement’ to emerge as an indisputable and
commonsense necessity, a hegemonic discourse. These kinds of
investigations tend to become part of ‘the genealogical canon’, if such a
formulation could ever exist. However, Dehli’s disturbance of that boring
monotony is what her contribution is about. Moving off the beaten track,
she shifts her interest to a genealogical investigation of her own research
practices, seeking to reveal how they contributed to the ultimate production
of the subjects they were attempting to problematize in the first place. In
the same way that de Lauretis has argued that the construction of gender is
effected by its deconstruction (1987), Dehli shows how the constructions of
‘the parent’ and ‘the researcher’ are similarly effected by their
deconstruction. This is obviously a brilliant idea to have but a difficult task
to pursue. Dehli sets about her task by encompassing discontinuities,
difficulties, hesitations, and weak links in the very text she produces instead
of creating a meta-narrative of continuities, an undisrupted flow of ideas. It
is Foucault’s ethico-political project that she follows in choosing to ‘force
into view those tendencies in our thought to naturalize positions we
28 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
endorse’ (p.145) and to reveal the ‘games of truth’ she is inevitably involved
as a researcher. A critical task following from this ‘politics-as-ethics’ (p. 145)
is for researchers ‘to rethink their/our affiliations with and commitment to
political communities’. Dehli’s suggestion is that perhaps working
ethnography and genealogy together might be one of the possible routes for
doing that.
Wayne Martino’s chapter, ‘Researching Masculinities: The Implication
and Uses of Foucauldian Analyses in Undertaking Ethnographic
Investigations into Adolescent Boys’ Lives at School’, also examines the
ethnography/genealogy encounter in the analysis of the construction of
gendered subjectivities, but it focuses on the formation of technologies of
the self around masculinities, and concerns itself with the lives of
adolescent boys at school. Clearly, this is a broad area of genealogical
investigation, but Martino concentrates on how practices of embodied
masculinity are deployed in the intersubjective space between the
ethnographer/genealogist and the researched. Doing masculinity in research
is problematized with reference to the seldom-considered significance of
the anxieties produced in the research process when the researcher is seen
to transgress widely accepted norms of masculinity. Martino argues that it is
at this point that adopting a Foucauldian interpretive analytic becomes
particularly relevant for the ethnographic investigation in process. Using
genealogical lenses to interrogate the effects of embodied masculinity within
the ethnographic research process draws on Foucault’s deployment of
sexuality within a certain discursive regime. In this context, what is
particularly interesting, Martino argues, is the analysis of those specific
practices within which the individual, in his case the ethnographer and
adolescent boys, are incited to relate to themselves, making strategic use of
what Foucault has defined as technologies of the self. Martino goes on to
construct a set of research questions that derive from the researcher’s
engagement with genealogical strategies addressing various subject positions
that the ethnographer and the adolescent boys can find themselves taking
up in the matrix of the research process. What is particularly interesting
here is the way Martino’s lived experiences as an ethnographer, researching
masculinities, is intertwined with the epistemological and methodological
questions his contribution raises, highlighting the attention to the body,
which as we pointed out earlier, in this introduction, is a theoretical and
methodological topos of genealogy and ethnography. Martino’s analysis
moves from a detailed and in-depth reading of Foucault to demonstrating
the practicalities of such theoretical considerations as they are applied to
ethnographic moments of adolescent boys’ lives.
Genealogy and Ethnography 29
forcefully brings to the fore. First, it is the catalytic role of space in the ways
women teachers make sense of their lives and use autobiographical
practices, both to represent these lives, but also to act upon them and
attempt to become different. In Tamboukou’s analysis, women’s practices
of self-representation can be seen as a set of Foucauldian technologies of
the self, which, however, deviate from the male tradition Foucault has
traced, forming two new sub-groups, which she classifies as ‘technologies
of space’ and ‘technologies of resistance’ (pp.207–8). Second are embodied
practices of self-representation that genealogical analysis opens up,
particularly as these stand over and against dominant discourses of
passionlessness, which have long framed women teachers’ (a)sexuality.
Tamboukou then moves on to consider the deployment of genealogical
strategies, theorizing the analytical trails of descent and emergence, highlighting
in particular the research effects they produce when applied to women
teachers’ life narratives. It is in the construction of the genealogical
dispositif, focusing on a problem of our actuality, Tamboukou argues, that
ethnographic practices have emerged to enliven the grey documents of
genealogy, enlighten and problematize our present. Tamboukou considers a
variety of ethnographic practices, particularly participant observation and
the secondary analysis of existing ethnographic data. In her final argument,
she uses the metaphor of musical rhythm to illustrate how working in the
topos of genealogy and ethnography can be like finding the rhythm in a
musical piece of improvisation where notes/practices can be brought
together only temporarily and provisionally as an effect of inventing,
experimenting, and ultimately thinking differently.
NOTES
1. See, amongst others Ball, (1990, 1994), Chambon et al. (1999), Dean
(1994), Dickens and Fontana (1994), Gitlin (1994), Lather (1991),
Lloyd and Thacker (1997), Meadmore et al. (2000), Popkewitz and
Brennan (1998).
2. See Sawicki (1991, p.15)
3. See Ball (1994), Davies (1990), Fontana (1994) Lather (1994), Pignatelli
(1993).
4. See, amongst others, Ashenden and Owen (1999), the debate between
Bogard and Denzin (1986, pp.206–211), Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982),
Kelly (1998), Pillow (2000), and St. Pierre (1997).
5. See Hammersley and Atkinson (1983, pp. 22–24).
Genealogy and Ethnography 31
6. Francois Ewald has noted that ‘genealogy adopts the point of view of
the body, that of the tortured, trained, branded, mutilated,
decomposed, constrained, subjected body, that of the body which is
divided, organized, separated, and reunited’ (Mahon, 1992 p.9).
Sheridan (1990) has commented extensively on what he calls the
‘power-body’ conjunction in Foucault.
7. See Weedon (1987), Diamond and Quinby (1988) Nicholson (1990),
Butler (1990), Sawicki (1991), McNay (1992, 1994), Patton (1993),
Probyn (1993).
8. See, amongst others, Featherstone (1991), Shilling (1993), Coffey
(1999).
9. “Power as sovereignty” and “power as deployment” are terms used by
Thomas Popkewitz and Marie Brennan (1998, pp.16–18). We have
borrowed them and relate the first with ethnography and the latter
with genealogy.
10. The metaphor of dance has already been used in theoretical analyses
on genealogy. See Conway (1999).
11. As it has been suggested: ‘where do the various medical, psychiatric
and carceral systems of surveillance and discipline, detailed in Discipline
and Punish and elsewhere, stand in relation to that distinction?’ (Maggil,
1997, p.66).
12. As Dean has commented, genealogy ‘studies what is closest, but so as
to seize it at a distance’ (1994, p.89). As influential commentators on
Foucault’s methodology have pointed out, ‘interpretive understanding
can only be obtained by someone who shares the actor’s involvement,
but distances himself [sic] from it’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982,
p.124).
13. For a more detailed description of the genealogical strategies, see
Tamboukou (1999).
14. See Britzman (1995), Clifford and Marcus (1986), Fontana (1994),
Gitlin (1994), Lather (1991).
15. Atkinson (1992), Clifford and Marcus (1986).
16. See again Britzman (1995).
REFERENCES
32 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
LLOYD, M., and THACKER, A. (1997) The Impact of Michel Foucault on the Social
Sciences and Humanities (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press).
MAGGIL, K. (1997) Surveillance-Free-Subjects. In M. LLOYD and A.
THACKER (Eds.) The Impact of Michel Foucault on the Social Sciences and
Humanities (Basingstoke: Macmillan Press), 54–77.
MAHON, M. (1992) Foucault’s Nietzschean Genealogy, Truth, Power, and the
Subject (Albany: State University of New York Press).
MARCUS, G. E. (1986) Contemporary Problems of Ethnography in the
Modern World System. In J. CLIFFORD and G. E. MARCUS (Eds.),
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley: University
of California Press), 165–193.
MCNAY, L. (1992) Foucault and Feminism (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press).
——— (1994) Foucault: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press).
MEADMORE, D., HATCHER, C., and MCWILLIAM, E. (2000) Getting tense
and Genealogy. Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 463-476.
NICHOLSON, L. (Ed.) (1990) Feminism/Postmodernism (London: Routledge).
PATTON, P. (Ed.) (1993) Nietzsche, Feminism, and Political Theory (London:
Routledge).
PIGNATELLI, F. (1993) What Can I Do? Foucault on Freedom and the
Question of Teacher Agency. Educational Theory, 43(4), 411– 432.
PILLOW, W. (2000) Deciphering attempts to Decipher Postmodern
Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 29(5), 20–24.
POPKEWITZ, T., and BRENNAN, M. (Eds.) (1998) Foucault’s Challenge:
Discourse, Knowledge and Power in Education, (New York: Teachers College
Press).
PROBYN, E. (1993) Sexing the Self: Gendered Positions in Cultural Studies
(London: Routledge).
RAJCHMAN, J. (1985) Michel Foucault: The Freedom of Philosophy (New York:
Columbia University Press).
RHOADS, R. (2000) Crossing Sexual Orientation Borders: Collaborative
Strategies for Dealing with Issues of Positionality and Representation.
In S. J. BALL (Ed.), Sociology of Education: Major Themes, Vol. 1 (London:
Routledge, Falmer), 80–102.
RORTY, R. (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge
University Press).
SAWICKI, J. (1991) Disciplining Foucault (London: Routledge).
SHERIDAN, A. (1990) Michel Foucault: The Will to Truth (London: Routledge).
SHILLING, C. (1993) The Body and Social Theory (London: Sage).
SMITH, L. M. (1990) Critical Introduction. In M. HAMMERSLEY (Ed.)
Classroom Ethnography (Buckingham: Open University Press).
36 M. Tamboukou and S.J. Ball
ST.PIERRE, E., (1997) ‘Nomadic inquiry in the smooth spaces of the field’
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10 (3) 365-383.
STRAUSS, A. (1987) Qualitative Data Analysis for Social Scientists (New York:
Cambridge University Press).
TAMBOUKOU, M. (1999) Writing genealogies: an exploration of Foucault’s
Strategies for Doing Research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 20(2), 201–218.
THOMAS, G. (1998) The myth of rational research. In British Educational
Research Journal, 24(2), 141–161.
THOMAS, J. (1991). Doing Critical Ethnography (Newbury, CA: Sage).
TYLER, S. (1986) Post-Modern Ethnography: From Documents of the
Occult to Occult Document. In J. CLIFFORD and G. E. MARCUS (Eds.)
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography (Berkeley: University
of California Press), 99–122.
VEYNE, P. (1997) Foucault Revolutionizes History. In ARNOLD DAVIDSON
(Ed.), Foucault and his Interlocutors (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press), 146–182.
WEEDON, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Postructuralist Theory (New York:
Basil Blackwell).
WILLIS, P. (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working
Class Jobs (Farnborough: Saxon House).
WOODS, P. (1986) Inside Schools: Ethnography in Educational Research (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul).